from the bad-reporting-people dept

As you probably know by now, last summer, Elon Musk announced that he was freeing up all of Tesla's patents. He pointed out that he didn't believe patents made any sense, and they especially didn't make sense in the electric vehicle space where they were clearly holding innovation back. Because some investors still couldn't comprehend this -- and assumed (for months!) that there must be some sort of catch, earlier this year Musk clarified that, yes, he really, really meant it, and Tesla's patents were totally free. No need to obtain a license. No need to pay a fee. No need to talk to or tell Tesla about it -- just go and innovate.

Earlier this week, Ford made an announcement claiming that it, too, was opening up its patents -- but the details show that this is a lot more hype and PR than substance. First, unlike Tesla, it's not all of its patents, but rather a specific portfolio of electric vehicle patents. Second, and much more importantly, it's not open. At all. You still have to license them and you still have to pay. This is just Ford announcing "Hey, we have patents, come pay us to use them." That's not opening up those patents. It's marketing the fact that you need to license them. This is the opposite of what Musk did with Tesla's patents.

To access Ford’s patents and published patent applications, interested parties can contact the company’s technology commercialization and licensing office, or work through AutoHarvest – an automaker collaborative innovation and licensing marketplace. AutoHarvest allows members to showcase capabilities and technologies, then privately connect with fellow inventors to explore technology and business development opportunities of mutual interest. The patents would be available for a fee.

And yet, nearly all of the press coverage worked exactly the way Ford intended: claiming that Ford was doing the same thing as Tesla. Here's just a sampling:

That last one is particularly hilarious. The title doesn't reference Tesla, but early in the article it does -- and again falsely claims that Ford's program is free:

If, as basic economic theory teaches, something is worth only what someone or group of people is willing to pay for it, then it seems the intellectual property associated with electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells is worthless.

Ford Motor is the latest car company to make this case. Today Ford joined Toyota Motor and Tesla Motors in making a vast range of patented electrification technologies available to its competitors. All free for serious EV developers.

Second, that's not what basic economic theory teaches at all. It's what ignorant armchair economists think it teaches. I know we have to go through this every few years, but price is not a measure of value. Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, and can be influenced by a number of different factors unrelated to value. The value to the buyer plays a role in determining the demand curve. Because if the price is less than the value derived, then that's when the buyer is likely to buy. But giving something away does not, in any way, mean that something is worthless.

And, again, this article misses the basic fact that Ford is not giving these away for free.

And people wonder why news publications are struggling to hold onto readers.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

April Fool's day is fun for some people -- and annoying for others. John Oliver thinks pranks are terrible, and he's gotten some people to make a no-pranks pledge. But for folks who like to waste time and smirk at the discomfort at others, here are a couple videos to watch featuring cars and some crazy driving.

from the let-us-explain-to-you-the-law dept

Back in July, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit filed by the AARC -- the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies -- trying to make use of a misreading of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) to pretend that it means that Ford and GM have to pay royalty money for every CD ripping car stereo they install. As we noted, the AHRA is basically a deadletter law. The law itself effectively killed any possible innovation in the area that it was designed to tax for royalties -- machines that make repeated copies of content. The recording industry tried to pretend that basic MP3 players met the definition and sued one of the first such players, the Diamond Rio. The court soundly rejected the argument in that case, and thanks to that, probably 99% of you have MP3 players (or, nowadays, smartphones that play MP3s). In our original post, we went into much greater detail about why the AARC was clearly misreading both the law and the caselaw in a desperate attempt to kick up some royalties from the big automakers.

Congress enacted the AHRA in 1992 to regulate a then emerging technology that for the
first time enabled high quality serial copying of copyrighted musical recordings. “Serial
copying” refers to the creation of copies of a musical recording from another copy of that
recording as opposed to the creation of copies from the original recording. This activity
concerned the music industry, which was a proponent of the AHRA. However, rather than
directly prohibit serial copying outright, Congress exempted certain products and devices—
specifically including computers and hard drives—from compliance while requiring other
specifically defined “devices” to also incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. The
automotive navigation systems here are exempted.

Neither Ford nor Clarion is in the business of facilitating the serial copying of music.
Ford is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world; it builds and sells some of the
best-selling cars and trucks, certain models of which include navigation systems. Clarion
manufactures and supplies Ford with navigation systems for its vehicles. Each such navigation
system is a complex computer and includes a central processing unit that interprets and executes
complex instructions and a 40 GB hard drive for storage of an operating system, computer
software programs, databases, and other information (“Nav System”).

[....]

By its own Complaint, Plaintiff admits that this feature of Defendants’ Nav System
consists of recording CDs to the system’s own hard drive, where the music is stored with various
software programs and other data. It alleges nothing about making serial copies of CDs, digital
audio tapes and the like. Under a plain reading of the AHRA, these automobiles with a Nav
System are not capable of making a “digital audio copied recording” of a “digital musical
recording” as defined under the Act. This is because the AHRA states that digital musical
recordings do not include (1) material objects in which one or more computer programs are fixed
or (2) material objects in which data other than sounds are fixed. Here, the Nav Systems are
nothing less than automotive computers with hard drives containing both programs and data
other than sounds. They do not reproduce digital music recordings in materials objects
addressed by the statute, that is, CDs, LPs, cassettes, or digital audio tapes. The Nav Systems are
outside the AHRA’s scope.

Not surprisingly, the filing relies heavily on the ruling in the Diamond case, and I see that one of the lawyers listed on the filing is Andrew Bridges, who handled the Diamond case in the first place. You never know how these kinds of court cases will turn out in the end, but it seems unlikely that the AARC is going to get rich off of this last gasp effort to squeeze money out of automakers.

from the keep-scroungingn-for-loose-change dept

It's no secret that the legacy recording industry players are constantly searching for new ways to make money. Of course, they don't seem all that keen on actually searching for new business models to make money, but rather they tend to default to new ways to squeeze money out of others through legal changes or lawsuits. That's what happens when you have an industry dominated by lawyers, rather than innovators. It's why so many new music services end up getting sued. It's why ASCAP tried to declare that ringtones were a public performance (ditto for the 30 second previews of songs at iTunes). Basically, these industries just go searching under the couch cushions for spare change to sue for because that's how they operate.

The latest such example is the AARC -- the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies -- deciding to file a lawsuit demanding $2,500 for every car in which Ford and GM have installed CD devices that will automatically rip CDs into MP3s to store on a local hard drive. The AARC is a smaller and little known collection society. It was created solely to collect fees from the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), one of the many (many) laws that the RIAA foisted upon the world in fear over the rise of digital music. It was designed as something of a "compromise" between the RIAA and the computing and consumer electronics industry. The focus was supposedly to better enable personal, non-commercial home copies of music, while putting royalties on devices used to make serial (repeated) copies.

The problem is that the AHRA is basically a deadletter act, with little real standing in the world today, partly because the act itself killed the market for such devices. The RIAA had tried to use it in the late 1990s to ban the mp3 player (or, well, to tax them to death). But, thankfully, a court in RIAA v. Diamond rejected that interpretation of the law, making mp3 players perfectly legal (without the corresponding royalty tax). That ruling, which destroyed the RIAA's (wrong) interpretation of the law, also opened up the wonderful digital music world we have today, where you can store thousands of songs in your pocket. Without the RIAA v. Diamond ruling, it's unlikely that we'd ever have the iPod.

There are still a very small number of things that are supposedly covered by the AHRA, but AARC collects a tiny, tiny amount of money. The Copyright Office's data shows a total of $748,277.72 in 2013. That's down from previous years, but at it's very highest AARC collected $5.3 million, and most years it was closer to $2 million. Oh, and in case you're wondering, almost none of that money actually gets paid out. The last year that the Copyright Office has published details concerning these fees, 2010, it notes that AARC collected $1.75 million... and paid out just $7,894.84. Yes, you read that right. AARC collected nearly $2 million, but gave less than $8,000 to copyright holders (likely the major labels, who probably didn't give any of that money to actual artists). The previous year, it paid out a whopping $16,564.63.

However, suddenly AARC seems to think that these CD-to-mp3 devices violate the law, and the auto companies and the electronics firms that make the devices, Denso and Clarion, must pay. The AARC is pulling out all the stops to explain why the lawsuit makes sense, focusing on claims by GM (in its marketing material) that "the hard drive will not accept photos or other sorts of data" but just music. This is in part because of the Diamond ruling noted (correctly) that a general purpose hard drive doesn't apply. But the AARC appears to be totally ignoring other key parts of the ruling.

For example, the court focused on the fact that the AHRA was targeted towards devices that are making more copies of works, and not on attempts to make recordings for private, non-commercial use. Here's what the court said about Diamond's Rio mp3 player (SCMS is the DRM the AHRA required device manufacturers install -- the Rio didn't have it, because they noted you can't copy works off the device, so it wasn't needed):

the Rio does not permit such further copies to be made because it simply cannot download or transmit the files that it stores to any other device. Thus, the Rio without SCMS inherently allows less copying than SCMS permits.

In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use."... The Act does so through its home taping exemption, ... which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings," ... The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.

In other words, the court recognized that devices that are just recording for home and personal use (and not allowing further copies) fit nicely into the purpose of the act and aren't subject to the royalty rates. It seems likely that the same argument applies to Ford and GM in this case. The AARC coyly claims that "other manufacturers, importers and distributors of comparable music recorders pay the required royalties without controversy," but it doesn't name who actually pays or for what.

Of course, these days, even CD ripping is well on its way to the technological graveyard. If the AARC magically succeeds with this lawsuit, I would imagine it would receive a one-time payout (how much do you think artists will see?), followed by Ford and GM ditching CD rippers from their vehicles, and moving straight to built-in streaming setups via things like Pandora and Spotify. But, you know, these days, the legacy record labels are searching under every damn legal cushion, never once thinking that maybe not trying to demand cash, but rather earning it from willing buyers might make more sense.

from the abusive-powers-gorging-on-self-induced-paranoia dept

Photography is the new "driving while black." Not that the original "driving while black" has actually vanished, what with New York City making "walking while black" the equivalent of reasonable suspicion, but now people of all races, even those normally somewhat immune to harassment, can join in on the "fun" of low-level oppression.

Mr. Linkhorn and Ms. Fraser were in Lima covering a Ford Motor Co. news conference at the automaker’s plant there. Afterward, they went to shoot photos of businesses in the area for future use, including the tank plant, which is also known as the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

The reporters were at the entry portions of the plant, in an area where no fence or gate restricted access, according to the complaint. They did not pass a guard hut, which is about 30 feet from Buckeye Road.

The Lima, OH tank plant is well known and has been photographed before. The company makes no secret about what it manufactures, having placed this right in front of its plant.

But because all things, even photography of visible structures, inevitably lead to terrorism, security at the Lima plant decided to step in and stop the two Blade employees from gathering any more "intel."

Blade reporter Tyrel Linkhorn and photographer Jetta Fraser were detained March 28 by military security outside the plant and had cameras confiscated and pictures deleted.

This alone would step outside the boundaries set by the Constitution, but the security officers went even further, harassing the photographer by making various comments about her (perceived) lack of femininity, including referring to her using masculine pronouns and offering to "go under her bra."

The lawsuit claims Ms. Fraser and Mr. Linkhorn's First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights were deprived, as were their rights under the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act.

"At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were present in places that were open to the public and in which Plaintiffs had a lawful right to be," the lawsuit states. "At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were engaged in fully lawful and constitutionally protected conduct, observing and photographing subjects that were and are open to public view and that Plaintiffs had full legal and constitutional rights to observe and photograph."

As is noted in the lawsuit, everything photographed could be seen from a public road. You can see satellite photography of the plant via Google Maps, not to mention closer looks via Street View. None of this has been redacted by government request. Details on buildings, including interior structures, are listed in a 1984 "Historic American Engineering Record" produced and made public by the contractor itself. Much of what's contained is now outdated, but what's included in this public report was current as of 1980, four years prior to its release.

An image search for "Lima Army Tank Plant" brings up a host of current photos, many of which show the inside of the building, something that would be vastly more sensitive than anything obtained by a photographer located outside the boundaries of the plant itself.

Despite all of this info being readily available, plant security allegedly named the following as the impetus for its seizure of the camera and deletion of photos.

Ms. Fraser said that an officer told her that taking pictures of the plant’s power supply that is visible from the street raised the “suspicion of terrorism.”

Much like the DHS and its useless Fusion Centers, everyone in the military-industrial complex (along with the intelligence community in general) is buying into the lie that photographing visible structures is "terrorism." If these publicly-viewable buildings pose so much of a threat simply by being observed, maybe security officers should stop harassing photographers and throw a few tarps over the sensitive structures or something.

from the acta's-back dept

A few months ago, we quoted the EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, who is responsible for handling the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations on the European side, as saying:

"ACTA, one of the nails in my coffin. I'm not going to reopen that discussion. Really, I mean, I am not a masochist. I'm not planning to do that.

If the Commission advances new basic legislation, which I think she should, we will revisit the question, but I'm not going to do this by the back door".

Well, either that was just more misdirection, or he's not in control of his staff. Because we learn from a stunning report of a little-publicized meeting between corporate lobbyists and the EU's negotiator on intellectual monopolies, Pedro Velasco Martins, that putting many of the worst features of ACTA into TAFTA/TTIP is precisely what the European Commission has planned.
Here's the background:

Taking place at the American Chamber of Commerce offices in Brussels, the purpose of the two hour exchange was to strategize between businesses and the Commission in order to make sure that the maximum level of new IP restrictions will be written into the treaty. Present at the meeting were representatives from a range of the very largest multinational corporations. Among these were TimeWarner, Microsoft, Ford, Eli Lilly, AbbVie (pharmaceutical, formerly Abbott) and the luxury conglomerate LMVH. The participant list also included representatives from Nike, Dow, Pfizer, GE, BSA and Disney - among others. Also present
was Patrice Pellegrino from OHIM [Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market], the EU/Commission agency responsible for trade marks in the EU.

As you will notice, most of those companies are from the US. Nothing wrong that, of course, except when you consider the following:

Controversially, the supposedly neutral Commission negotiator and the OHIM representative not only defined themselves as allies with the businesses lobbyists. They went far beyond this and started to instruct the representatives in detail on how they should campaign to "educate" the public in order to maximise their outcome in terms of industry monopoly rights. In particular, concerns from elected representatives, such as the European Parliament -- as well as civil society criticisms about ever increasing intellectual property rights -- were to be kept out of the public debate.

Here's what the European Commission really wants to see in TAFTA/TTIP:

Commission negotiator Velasco Martins revealed the existence of a secret list of corporate demands for new intellectual property rights in the transatlantic treaty. Previously -- towards the public and the Parliament -- the Commission has created the impression that intellectual property rights will be downplayed. The only IP right mentioned has been geographical indications, a minor issue which few are concerned about. In reality, the Commission now revealed that they have received "quite a Christmas list of items" on IP from corporate lobbyists and that they are working to implement this list. The list has already been discussed with the US in several meetings, in person as well as online.

The Christmas list covers almost every major intellectual property right. On patents, industry had shown "quite an interest" especially on the procedures around the granting of new patents. On copyrights the industry wants to have the "same level of protection" in the US and EU; in reality this always means harmonization up which results in more restrictions for the general public. On plant variety rights the pharma sector has lobbied for "higher levels" of protection. On trademarks the corporate lobbyists had made classification-related requests to the Commission. Additionally there had been a lot of interest in trade secrets.

There's also stuff from our old friend ACTA -- stricter enforcement:

According to the negotiator, the most repeated request on the Christmas list was in "enforcement". Concerning this, companies had made requests to "improve and formalize" as well as for the authorities to "make statements". The Commission negotiator said that although joint 'enforcement statements' do not constitute "classical trade agreement language" -- a euphemism for things that do not belong in trade agreements -- the Commission still looks forward to "working in this area".

Since the beginning of the TTIP negotiating process, it is very clear that the eventual agreement on intellectual property rights will not include elements that were controversial in the context of ACTA. For example, the ACTA provisions on IPR enforcement in the digital environment (ACTA articles 27.2 to 27.4) will not be part of the negotiations. Neither will ACTA's provisions on criminal sanctions.

The report of the meeting contains many other fascinating insights into the real thinking of the European Commission. For example, apparently there is some relief that people are focusing on the horrors of corporate sovereignty, since that has allowed work on the "corporate Christmas list" to proceed unnoticed. There was also a warning that it is probably only a matter of time before details get out:

"Lots of people are waiting for the first slip, the first leak"

In the wake of the good things that have already flowed from Edward Snowden's leaks, and the enhanced status of whistleblowers today, that seems increasingly likely to happen. Finally, there was a useful hint of how the European Commission is going to attempt to justify bringing back ACTA in TAFTA/TTIP:

A recurring theme was that the public needs to be re-educated to understand the value of industry monopoly rights.

According to Pellegrino, the key to doing this is a number of pro-IP reports that will or have been released by OHIM.

One recent report was highlighted. It claims that every fourth job in the EU only exists because of intellectual property regulations.

Techdirt wrote about this back in October, where we pointed out that it obtains these unrealistically high figures by including a whole range of industries that use things like copyright and patents only in the most limited and tangential way. Expect to see more of these exaggerated claims, based on similarly shoddy methodologies, appearing in the next few months.

That OHIM is putting out such propaganda isn't perhaps too surprising -- it's just a form marketing for its activities. But what is shocking is that an OHIM representative, along with the most senior EU negotiator for intellectual monopolies, should be offering detailed advice to US companies on how to subvert the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations by trying to keep the dissenting views of Members of the European Parliament and EU civic groups out of the debate. That's a direct assault on fair and open discourse, and ultimately undermines European democracy at a time when many are calling into question the entire idea of the European Union.

At the very least, the European Commission should set up a formal inquiry into what happened at this meeting, to make sure such blatant favoritism is avoided in future. If it doesn't, we'll know definitively that not only is it happy to see corporates on both sides of the Atlantic given preferential treatment during TAFTA/TTIP, but that it really doesn't care who knows. Meanwhile, those who took to the streets of Europe to fight off ACTA last year may want to start getting their boots ready.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are plenty of cool cars that are just too expensive for most people to even think about buying, but sometimes the really cool cars are the ones that aren't even quite ready to be sold (Tesla SUV, anyone?). Gull wing doors and exotic metal alloys are usually the key parts of concept vehicles and prototype cars. Here are just a couple cars you might have seen and a prediction of what we'll all be driving in the next few decades.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Commercials are always trying to get people's attention -- sometimes by being controversial and sometimes by being shocking. But even when a company tries to broadcast only sensitive and feel-good messages, there will always be some folks pointing out that companies don't really care about people as much as profits. Here are just a few advertisements that might have just missed getting their message across.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you believe in gender stereotypes, then you probably think that men are better drivers than women. However, auto insurance companies are inclined to believe that women are actually safer drivers. It's a hotly debated topic, but it's safe to say that there are lots of bad drivers -- both men and women -- on the road. That's why we need robot cars. Here are a few links to some driving-related studies.

from the please-stop-that-myth dept

We've complained in the past when companies, the press and analysts try to use number of patents as a "proxy" for innovation. It's quite misleading -- and various studies have made that clear. You can have tremendous innovation without patents, and you can have tons of patents, without any real innovation. Yet, as reader Nick points out, a report looking at the alternative energy auto space dings Ford for "lagging" in "the alternative energy race" because it doesn't have as many patents as others.

This is a real shame, because we've discussed before how the massive patent thickets in the hybrid car space have been holding back innovation and development in that space. In fact, Ford had a big tussle with Toyota a few years back after Toyota sued Ford and the two companies wasted tons of money and time in court, until the court finally pointed out that Ford did not infringe. On top of that, Ford has been one of the earlier adopters of hybrid offerings and remains the third largest hybrid seller after Toyota and Honda. So, claiming that it's somehow "lagging" because of fewer patents is quite misleading.